DraculyaGerry1of1 I've wondered that recently. I mean homosexuality, without donation, in vitro, etc, causes genes not to be passed on. Normally, in the animal kingdom, anything that prevents reproduction is considered a genetic defect.

If you believe that all our behavior is somehow related to an instinctive behavior that benefits survival, which I do, and you believe homosexuality is naturally occurring, which I do, what could be the evolutionary point?

5cats i was noticing that this morning. Normally when i wake up he has a bunch of insults and trolls on my posts, but it's been growing less and less, and just this morning i noticed he hadn't spent all night trolling my posts, so maybe it's a positive step, or else they know it's futile.

Honestly, all he has in his life is this? Trolling complete strangers who utterly ignore him? For MONTHS on end this is the most important thing in his life?Might feel sorry for him if it wasn't self-inflicted.

monkwarrior trying to talk with you is as productive as having a conversation with a honey nut cheerio. so yeah that and i hate feeding your orcism. since you have no idea what a troll is. im a reflector! like you! jeje. plus im glad you found a friend in 5cats, you two make a cute couple.

cjeffblanchr - no, but in the developed West it is very rare and associated with religious fanaticism. Natural selection is just treated as the fact of nature it is. No one bothers to argue for its veracity as it is taught, understood and explained as a matter of course. I find the USAs ignorance totally ridiculous...

cjeffblanchr - yes it is. Evolution by natural selection is the process by which we have the diversity we do. There is some argument about abiogenesis, and certainly some really interesting idea about gene transfer etc- but natural selection is the process which makes me related to a horse, and a banana.

madduck Natural Selection may play a part in "evolution", but it is also accountable for changes within a species. Natural selection is a proven event in nature that has been observed, whereas evolution from one species to another has not.

cjeffblanchr define observation? We have ample evidence of it happening in the fossil record, and by looking at the DNA where possible. we can't watch it in action as the timescale is too long- the Earth is old, 4 billion doesn't sound much when you say it quickly but its a LOT of time. more importantly it is a LOT of generations..

madduck Are you suggesting that there is observable evidence? How does DNA show this? Because there are similar or identical strands within it in differing species (I mean, as an example, the whale and the hippo, not two different kinds of fruit flies)? Does a while having "hip bones" really show that they evolved from a land mammal, or does it just show that they have bones that resemble hip bones?

When I say observation, of course I mean what we can observe today. We cannot, as you said, watch it over a long period of time.

cjeffblanchr - Given we aren't yet 100% on whether DNA is always changed by mutation, or whether there is some way it gets spliced in via viruses ( fascinating idea) there is I presume a small possibility it just occurs without a link- but now we know what it codes for it does make it slightly clearer. But the intermediate forms in the fossil record are pretty convincing, and given we can watch in real time how selection can modify creature with very short life spans your idea about only having drift within species begs the question- at what point, and by what mechanism, does that drift stop? Because to back up that idea you have to answer that question- but if it doesn't stop then all you need is enough time. Which there has been.

madduck But isn't that still speculation. What species have we seen actually change into a new kind of creature? Isn't a fruit fly still just a different type of fruit fly? I don't see how this demonstrates that there is a leap from one kind of animal to another. I think evolution would be easier to buy into if the creatures of the world were random blobs of mutations, much like you see after a nuclear disaster. But the animals of the world are mostly, ordered, beautiful creatures (at least until you start looking at some of the weird stuff that lives in the ocean!).

cjeffblanchr Evolution does not move at a constant speed ok?Some species remain unchanged for millions of years... others come and go in less than a hundred thousand.

During times of great stress? Only the "unusual" ones will survive (right?) and overall populations are VERY low. During these short periods the fossils are nearly impossible to find, for those reasons (short time and low numbers). Not until thousands of years later when there's a LOT more of the "new" ones are fossils likely to show up: a new species! As far as we can tell...

5cats But pretty much everything you say here is nothing more than an assumption or speculation used to fill the holes in evolution. I mean, if evolution is true, then of course that all makes sense. But there is nothing solid that proves it.

cjeffblanchr Yes, it explains a theory of WHY there are "holes" in the evolutionary record. It isn't remotely possible that EVERY genetic variation got preserved as a fossil, the odds were many millions to 1...

But to say that because there is no FOSSIL of a creature and therefor it never did and could never have existed is truly far fetched.

We have the before picture and after picture of "that creature", it is extremely likely it existed. Like you and your blood-kin grandfather? You two surely show that your father or mother (Grandpa's biological son or daughter) existed, correct?

5cats But the existence of my father is confirmed by far more than just assumptions. I get how evolution works; I understand that not all of those fossils would be preserved. But it is not proven by any stretch that because we can see creatures similarly featured in the fossil record that there must have been something inbetween. It only shows us that two different, similarly featured creatures existed.

cjeffblanchr - at what point do you draw the line between species? But still my point stands, assuming you are correct how does a fruitfly stop changing past the point it can still be considered a fruit fly? If im right it just carries right on going, can drop wings, lose a leg or two, modify its eyes etc- gets a hairier back, an in a million years be a totally different creature entirely- remember how environment acts selectively?

madduck Yes, but as I just said to 5cats, that's all assuming evolution is true. If it is true, then that all makes sense. To simplify the matter, it would make evolution seem more valid if we had remains of every stage of the process from fruit fly, to wingless fruitfly, to 4 legged wingless fruitfly, to 4 legged wingless weird eyed fruit fly, and so on, at every stage until that insect is entirely different and has become a furry, hopping species that we would classify entirely different. But we don't see all those stages.

Now, I'll be fair and of course acknowledge that if evolution is true, we might not have fossilized remains of every one of them considering what it takes to actually get a fossil--just the right conditions in nature. But without those fossils and without the DNA samples of these many missing links, it is only a guess. Similarities simply don't prove descendancy ( I don't think that is actually a word, but I'm using it anyway).

As to your first question about where to draw the line between species... I'd say the line is just simply where we have them drawn in our classifications of animals. I realize that this classification may be derived from evolutionary research, but that's not relevant to my point here.

cjeffblanchr - mm, but you take my point, despite having fossil records and sometimes even living intermediate forms, and watching things like moths change ( and change back) you think mutation within species is possible, but that gradual unnoticable drift stops? we do regularly change the species lines even now- and with plants we have selectively bred to cause huge change, which proves that the method works but you claim environment cannot effect the same change?

madduck What fossil records? And what did these moths change into and back from? I'm genuinely interested and not just being difficult, as I'm trying to see outside of the box of my current view for the sake of this discussion, which I am enjoying.

Selective breeding and humans tinkering with genetics is really not comparable, I don't think. Someday we'll be able to genetically modify human children to all have the "perfect" qualities--so say that humanity decides to make all kids blone haired, blue eyed. Does that mean that nature would eventually have made us evolve into that or to have any other traits. Scientists doing this in a lab is directed, intelligent changes purposefully made, where as evolution is blind and random.

Anyway, any concessions I might make to some of these points are presuming that I accept that we've actually had enough time for evolution to have taken place. I'm not talking about 6000 years in the Biblical model, but even in the mostly accepted long life of earth. I also want to reiterate a point I made earlier... If evolution is true, then why would it have formed these perfectly wonderful, symmetrical creatures instead of just random blobs?

cjeffblanchr - Look up the Peppered moth in the UK. As for blobs- all that is required for a trait to influence enough is that it confers an advantage lasting long enough for that organism to breed. So as environment changes, so do beneficial traits- so a blob might appear, but unless it was a very good blob and routinely survived long enough to breed it wouldn't last- but a blob which could detect the movement of a blob eater might, and slowly, over time, only the very good movement detectors avoided being lunch for long enough to breed, that blob eventually having an eye- and possibly some blobs had small blooby protrusions which helped them move a shade faster, and guide food into them - before a few million years and twenty million generations pass you have an octopus... with the ones living in very deep water having fairly poor eyes as there was little light, but really really long arms...

madduck Fair enough answer on the blobs. I would expect there to be some of these blobs alive today though, ones that are not so evolved as the octopus. But there's some crazy stuff in the sea, so I will for now give you that one in part. I'll read up on the peppered moth and get back with you.

cjeffblanchr Well- every thing is selected for by a number of factors- environment being one- some creatures- sharks and crocodiles spring to mind - but the plant has changed vastly in its 4.8 billion years. if the blobs with movement detectors ate all the infant non detecting blobs that would account for it- but if a small colony lived somewhere alone, and unbothered by any changes they would still be here.. usually things start to differ then over time they drift further and further apart. The Cakapo (?) did very well after losing flight, growinging bigger as time passed until rats turned up on a passing ship...

cjeffblanchr madduxk is pointing out how we can see species evolve in just a few hundred years, and it usually takes many thousands of years for a species to exist to leave fossil records... tens of thousands...

Thus the change could easily happen in a short time and NO fossil record remains millions of years later...

Of course one needs to "assume evolution is correct' to think that a critical part of evolution is correct, yes? Otherwise it's like saying: that is a human hand, but humans don't actually exist... :/ at the same time.

5cats Conditions also have to be just right for fossils to be preserved. So again, I get how the theory of evolution works. I just think there are alternatives that are no less reasonable to believe. You said it right, though... one has to assume evolution is correct to piece it together. It is no different than my own viewpoint--there are assumptions (though on the more religious side I would call it faith) that have to be made.

cjeffblanchr Not from what I've witnessed in my travels. I've been to more countries than I can count on several continents-- Europe, Africa, Asia, North America, and South America--and have lived abroad briefly. There's a strong inverse correlation between high-quality, affordable education and ignorance. Government funding of education, both lower and higher, matters a great deal.

Unfortunately, lower education in America is mediocre or worse. And while we have some superb institutions of higher learning, they are increasingly affordable only to the well-to-do. This helps explain why American culture has a wide streak of anti-intellectualism and a lack of understanding--even a hostility--toward science.

Do you want an example of how the general level of education filters down through all levels of a society? I'll never forget the first time I saw a modern Japanese cookbook. (To be clear, I'm talking about cookbooks written in Japanese for Japanese readers, not American cookbooks on Japanese cuisine.) It was mindblowing: Most of the cookbooks over there use charts and graphs to indicate the time for the various aspects of a dish's preparation and tables to indicate relationships of ingredients. They are very precise and look a bit like something out of a science or statistics textbook. By flipping back and forth, you can combine the instructions for different dishes and have a precise timetable of how to prepare two or three dishes simultaneously.

Why are the Japanese cookbooks so much more advanced than what Americans typically use? Because virtually everyone in Japan who has graduated from high school is proficient in math and science and understands how to read complex charts and graphs. Your average American would be confused by the format. Or to put it this way: The average Japanese housewife who never went to college is far more proficient in math and science than most American college graduates.

cobrakiller I would agree that there is just as much proof of both God and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But I would not agree that there is equal evidence for them. And I think that evidence makes God more likely.

aegis1294 One can hold a belief in something whether it is true (proven) or not.

I think we just disagree. If I believe in God and yet someone wishes to convince me otherwise, it is their place to prove that my belief is wrong. Likewise, if someone believes there is no God and I wish to convince them there is, the burden lies with me.

Now, if I believe there is a God and I don't really care if you do or not, yet you care to prove to me that there is not, then the burden lies with you. Basically I'm just saying that whoever actually cares enough to try to convince someone should be the one having to prove it.

cobrakiller Here's the way I look at it... In my belief system, God wrote (or inspired) two books--the Bible and the book of nature. One is intended to address more philosophical ideas, and even history (though of course some will disagree with that), while the other is the observable world that we can study. While I think the two are compatible, they are not intended to stand side be side, nor can they. They may complement one another, but one does not prove the other.

These are, as you say, beliefs. I cannot claim with an honest mind that I know that my interpretations of either scripture or science are absolutely correct. That would be arrogant.

cjeffblanchr I believe its a difference in diction honestly. "God is real" is a really definitive statement, and anyone who thinks scientifically would look at that and say "based on what proof?". If however, you were to say "I believe in god" that can't really be debated, your belief is yours. People may scoff at the Idea of a belief system in general, because it is literally impossible to prove something doesn't exist. Which is why people often bring up the spaghetti monster, something purposefully ridiculous, because you cant disprove it. Its a logical fallacy.Now you were the first person here to imply that angels were real, that's why people are calling you out, the OP was just pointing out that a lot of Americans believe in angels.

aegis1294 I didn't imply angels were real. I simply asked how he knew they weren't. That was in no way a claim of my own belief.

Now, having said that, I do believe they are real. I don't think they are like little cherubs floating in the clouds strumming on harps. But I do believe there are spiritual entities that we cannot fully comprehend. However, I don't feel any need to make anyone believe that they are real--so I bear no burden.

I don't mind being called out on anything I say. Chances are I'll say something really stupid one of these days, and I should be called on on it. I understand your point about the burden of proof, I just object to anyone telling me that the burden of proof is on me if I've made no claim. I can state a belief; I can tell someone what I believe and even why I believe it. But unless I am trying to convince them, I don't have anything to prove.

Gerry1of1 It does show a lot. People like yourself assume that assumptions = fact. Others can see the fact but question the assumptions, and will point out to you assumptions != fact. Still others will deny it all completely.

See how bad assumptions are? Like i said, it's exactly the problem faced generations ago where it was assumed that fire, water, earth, and air were the only elements. How much further along we would be if it wasn't like that.

Part of the problem with it all is ego and pride. Some people are too afraid to admit when they are wrong.

cjeffblanchr Oh i fully admit there are things i might be wrong about, after all how else can we learn if we are never wrong? failure is a great way to learn!

But God has revealed himself to me, and this has been corroborated by many others and i understand it to be true, so in the reality of God, i know for a fact that He is real, and this is not wrong, nor will it ever be proven wrong.

lockner01 Oh, ignoring the previous thread again are you? there were 3 points that were provided to you of evidence, including scriptural, the evidence of testimony, and lives changed. Appeal to ignorance for the sake of cherry picking against testimony, it's neither rational or intelligent.

monkwarrior One link you provided was to google with something typed in the search bar. The second was to a web page run by a homophobic, mysogynistist, racist. The third was of a quote from the bible -- however you haven't told me if you take the bible literally or not. So you really didn't provide evidence of anything.

lockner01 And that's why you'll never learn the truth, you want to hold to your appeal to ignorance, a fallacy. You're growing into a troll more and more by the second, it's quite amazing to witness. There's still hope, but you'll have to work very hard to get out of it and over the mental blocks you've set up to limit your understanding.

lockner01 Moving the goalposts now? You specifically stated to boredhuman: "I'm sure monkwarrior will call you a troll and use the word fallacy in some context. "

While you were right that i did use a fallacy to point out your own, you were completely wrong that i would call boredhuman a troll. Of course they could come back and start trolling at which time i will point it out, but the point is you were wrong about that in relation to their post as my reply shows.

monkwarrior I wouldn't even try to argue that with you, even if I disagreed. We could, for example be wrong about a great number of small aspects of reality--as our spiritual beliefs relate to things seen in nature, through observation and science. I could be wrong about evolution--I've thought about this a hundred times. But no evidence has ever been enough to convince me that it is actually what happened. One really has to make assumptions based on a Godless worldview to make it all fit. Yet even if there were such evidence, it would change nothing about the faith. God has revealed Himself to us all, and by this the things that are written in scripture are, to us, the reality of existence. It's all a matter of whether or not we are open minded enough to consider something that is much deeper than the scientism of today's world. Not everyone will see things the same way as us, of course, and that's okay.

I watched it all, and i have to admit it started out strong, and i felt ready to be convinced, but it quickly fell off fast as it increased the use of assumption as if it's fact. Interestingly enough it focused on whales over the previous favored 'evolution tree' of horses, but it's no surprise as evolutionists realized that story no longer withstands scrutiny and chose to go with whales. But it's no better.

Lets look at the assumptions, at around 4:50, after some points they made, the author says something like "Comparative facts telling us the exact same story the ancestors of whales were once 4 legged animals" assumption - no one was there to see that and this is simply a story being assumed that no one witnessed.

They made a lot of assumptions to link the fossil record all the way up to the dolphin, again, which no one ever saw transition from and to, and that someone just made a story up that the author believed. I'm sure some people would feel that the earlier whales with hind legs and sharp teeth that he showed, looked more like alligators than whales, but i digress.

It says the dna of a hipo and a whale are similar, and then just assumes that oh, 54 million years ago it branched from a common ancestor, based on an ankle bone and a stomach?? I could easily assume a creator would say "Hey this prefab ankle/stomach works good so i'll use it somewhere else too", it wouldn't make me any more right than what was assumed in this video.

By the end of the video the author just kept firing the assumption after assumption, and i presume that the video author felt they had lulled you enough with authoritative on-your-side talk, so you would think that everything else they say is fact. Unfortunately it was full assumptions that no one today can prove.

So ultimately by the time the video was done, a lot of assumptions had been made, and there was still no proof. I'll stand by my previous statement to gerry1of1 no one of us today was there to see it ever occur. So claiming it assumption is fact without having a time machine to observe it factually, to test the theory to call it a fact, is simply just being taken on faith, we have no way to test it, so it is simply assumed and asserted in science today, like fire, water, earth and air were once too.

monkwarrior you're entitled to your beliefs. In turn, I believe you actually understand and believe evolution is true, but you or perhaps some part of your psyche publicly denies it to appear more devout or to avoid a logic implosion. I hope you can respect my beliefs.

Draculya I've mentioned a number of times i have seen evolution first hand. For example, the evolution of the internet, the evolution of the cell phone, the evolution of the TV, the evolution of vehicles, along with the evolution of many other things. These are based on facts, that people witnessed, and that we have a clear record of. Not assumptions, as the author of this video is trying to push as fact, that no one witnessed, that has no clear record of, and that could be anyone's guess.

I would like to see the religious culture turn to introspection and away from lobbying the government to impinge on common rights.

As for all those aspects of science that are at odds with ecclesiastical canon kids need to be taught to follow the evidence and the scientific method. In religious schools in England we are taught the gospel is steeped in metaphor and allegorical teachings because Jesus wanted to explain general principles without laying down laws that could be taken out of context or that would become redundant as society changed. He was also explicit that many of the laws laid down in the old testament were contrary to the principle of God's will.

Your religious beliefs and observance no doubt differs to my upbringing, but the way my chaplain and religious studies staff taught it made for a more robust belief system that was not challenged with destruction by science, logic and debate.

It's true that I eventually recognised that I never really believed the bit about God, heaven and miracles, etc. but that's a matter of my general sceptical incredulity, rather than being taught some scientific discovery that broke a circular logic cycle.

rumham He laid down a command that we love one another, and that is the root lesson of the scriptures that without even science would be in chaos (as we can see today how greed, not love, is affecting science with things like the question of climate change).

monkwarrior you live for this don't you. so you have all day to use your circular derpism to go on and on and on and on and on without really saying much of anything. but we're trolls using ad hominems and fallicy. so you can go on and on and on. you must've had a really fun weekend

monkwarriorassumption - no one was there to see that and this is simply a story being assumed that no one witnessed. This is what is known as a dodge, it only is convincing to the one making it or want it to be true. Did the U.S. Civil war happen? Was there really a Titanic? The reason we know that wales were once 4 legged animals is known and easily found but you won't bother unless someone has supplied you with a rebuttal.

taxidriver yes there may have been someone there to witness it all, agreed, however we have no information available to us in the form of recordings, or written observations that we can decipher in relation to it.

The titantic wreckage was found, there is also remnants of the civil war, both with much first hand documentation of. There is no first hand information of the observation of evolution or transition of whales as told by the story in this video. The reason you assume that whales were once 4 legged animals is because that is the stories you were told that you felt convinced by, such as the video in this article, that which have no evidence behind them but assumptions.

monkwarrior Even if we did not have the fossil record, the DNA evidence alone is sufficiently conclusive evidence for evolution. Your ideas sir, are a complete fabrication. You are lightyears away from properly evaluating evidence - or even knowing the proper questions. You cannot gauge different standards of evidence let alone compare them. You do not even understand what assumptions are or how they are used.

You are wildly guessing. You are just making stuff up while groping for fancy sounding words and justifications to frantically retain a failing worldview while the rest of us leap past you.

BuckeyeJoe I'm sorry, but we don't know enough of DNA to say that there is sufficient evidence for evolution. To understand where DNA came from, we must make major assumptions about ancient historical events, which no human beings were present to observe.

monkwarrior Oh yes we do. We have mapped the entire genomes of tons of animals. We can compare them molecule by molecule. The only assumption made here is that your brain actually functions, for which there is no evidence.

BuckeyeJoe unforunately for you, DNA does not prove evolution. But i digress, i fully understand anti-theists and atheist, those who need evolution to be true to quell their fears of God, to claim any assumption they can find to foist it up.

monkwarrior It is absurd to fear something which does not exist. DNA provides remarkable evidence for evolution. The nice hing about science is that it is true whether you believe it or not. Too bad faith doesn't work like that.

monkwarrior DNA provides remarkable evidence. I doubt you understand anything about it. And no matter how many times you insist, we will not adopt some fear for imaginary things. No amount of repetition will turn your delusion into truth.

monkwarrior Again, you do not know anything about this. Are dogs and wolves different creatures? At what point did a wolf become a dog? Was it a specific generation?

You are not even formulating the correct questions to challenge me with. It is possible (by the way) to challenge certain ideas in evolution, but you know so little about it you are oblivious to what they might be. I think you want scientists to somehow breed flies to produce elephants, or something, and this simply underlines your ignorance.

I can just guess your next reply: "Well if humans evolved from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys, Buck? Huh? How come that thing?"

I mean, there are some bat-shit crazy creationists out there, and even THEY would probably ask you to research some things first - because what you are saying makes even them look stupid.

The DNA evidence is not some hidden mystery, and if you actually cared in evaluating whether it was true you could probably find that evidence without much trouble.

Alas, you are not concerned with truth. You are just an idiot. There are many like you, you know....but only one monkwarrior. There can be only one. As. Foolish. As. You.

BuckeyeJoe I'm concerned with the truth, but unfortunately all anyone has presented is stories and assumptions, that no one can verify since no one witnessed it. You have faith the stories told of evolution are true, i get that, and I can see you're simply the judgment you're trying to claim me as, since the reality is it is assumptions and stories (not evidence) you are trying to assume as fact.

monkwarrior Sorry, didn't really understand much of that response. I'll need something more from you than just vomiting an incoherent word-salad containing iterations of "assumptions" and "truth." You may as well be typing it randomly.

The Discovery Institute (see your link) is a pseudo-scientific organization primarily concerned with posturing Intelligent Design, which is not a scientific theory. Since ID proponents have failed to successfully make it one, they have resorted to criticizing current theories - somehow thinking this provides evidence for ID (which it does not).

Since they have not taken the time to understand what science is and does, their attacks are not sufficiently informed to hone in on anything remarkable. 'Tis more flailing and desperation rather than coherent rhetoric. They think the absence of evidence is evidence for the opposite. It's sad.

We only need faith for things that have no evidence...like God, for example. Evolution has plenty of evidence, so it is not "faith."

monkwarrior An ad-hominem fallacy attacks one's character. In my previous reply I attacked the method of your argumentation, which is fair game. I use "argumentation" here more as a euphemism - your exposition bears little resemblance to valid argumentation.

Yes, we were done before we even began. No amount of evidence will ever change your beliefs - because they are not based on knowing truth. I continued this discussion for the benefit of anyone else reading it. You are likely beyond hope.

monkwarrior Humor me for a bit here, where do you think all these extinct animals came from? Do you believe that they all existed at the same time, and that some of them merely died off? Or do you believe that new species just appeared all of a sudden due to a creator or phenomenon etc?

DerryNH I certianly didn't, but i take it on faith, like how the author of this video takes what he was told about evolution on faith. It's not proven at all, but simply assumed to be a fact, yet without being able to prove what he said in the video. I was a bit dismayed he didn't prove the 2 points he said he was going to prove at the start of the video.

lockner01 I can't speak for monkwarrior, but personally I don't hold a great deal of what any Pope says as absolute. You do realize that Christians who are not Catholic really don't necessarily hold him in the same regard as do Catholics, right?

boredhuman the difference is that Jesus is the greatest of all humans, including the pope. I have respect for leaders of the church, but he is my equal, not my leader. He has yet to pay his wages for sin, as i do.

lockner01 Ah! i see your reading comprehension is failing you again. Clearly, as anyone who understands english can see, i was simply pointing out the ASSUMPTIONS made in the video. I was hoping that bolding them would have helped people such as yourself stay on track. Unfortunately i was wrong, but your assumption is still wrong either way.

lockner01 Scripture is valuable and effective at helping people build or understand faith in God. That's the fact of the Bible, and faith in God is one of its primary lessons. You don't seem to understand it very much if you're asking this question, so perhaps you need to spend more time studying scripture and what it teaches.

lockner01 Sorry, but i have no answer to give you, and the question you ask makes it appear you're simply fishing for a link to hook on to and troll with: insincere and desperate. This would have gone a whole lot better for you if you didn't come out the gate trolling. Let this be a learning moment for you.

monkwarrior No Ièm asking a sincere question. I have friends that are JWs and take the bible very literally. You use the Bible to support your arguements and call it evidence. To me that makes tht question very relevant.

lockner01 And what would the answer provide you with? more questions to ask when you realize it provides you nothing to latch on and troll with? you're already on your 4th question. If you want to get to your point, get to your point, and stop wasting time beating around the bush. Or is it you have no point and i'm right, you just want to troll?

monkwarrior Why is it that your go to arguement is to call someone a troll and try to walk away. The difference is that if you take the Bible literally your use of the term "evidence of testimony" is much different than if you don't.

monkwarrior It must be difficult being religious with the two worlds of thoughts colliding constantly: the observable world and the religious world. I guess this is why various ceremonies have to be constant (e.g. prayer, church, bible readings, bible camp) otherwise reason sets in. No thank you, I can deal with reality like when we die, that's it; back to the recycling pile.

abetterworld not at all, a person can easily understand and use the tools of science and religion effectively. The only thing that is difficult about being faithful is the amount of greed, hate, and division that the world is allowing at the time. It can be quite depressing to see.

cobrakiller Unfortunately for you, as we previously found out, your ignorance of the evidence of testimony is the reason why you reject the tool of religion, and why you'll continue to have difficulty against people who use both, the tools of science and religion. Yes, you have willfully put yourself at a disadvantage, and must calculate that into your expectations.

Gerry1of1 most people who are against it say such, but those who know of its value, like Einstien who once said "science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind", aren't so quick to make silly emotional claims.

"[...]Even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes. [...]"

Einstein also said that he agnostic, and did not believe in an afterlife.

monkwarrior as you previously decided to to use faith over logic, you look passed the fact that what you call "testimony" is not evidence.

If I were to say I saw a leprechaun steal an apple from my grandfathers apple tree, would you believe that testimony? Or would you look at me with extreme skepticism, and very rightfully ask me to produce more evidence than just my word?

cjeffblanchr Witness from different angles. For instance, if the Roman's and other groups also had documentation about Yeshua, then I would be more inclined to believe the stories of him in the Gospel.

cobrakiller you percieved i decided to use faith over logic, however i use both. Again you prove your cherry picking by calling testomony "not evidence".

The difference between your testimony and the evidence of testimony for God is that testimony for God has been corroborated over thousands of years. If you were to come up and say that i would look at you with skepticism because the testimony for leprechans leaves a lot to be desired in comparison to testimony for God which can lead someone to have a relationship with the living creator of all things.

cobrakiller if billions of people believe something, for example God, whom there is evidence of testimony, along with lessons in scriputre that can help people understand God, and people follow them and find out the truth is what the testimony testifies for; then there is a high likelihood that there is something real there.

Understand, if many anti-theists believe it to not be true, that doesn't make God any less real.

No matter how you look at it, testimonies have helped billions of people to understand God, and the lessons of scripture explain why many people won't find God, as you can study as well.

monkwarrior Testimonies help people understand other peoples interpretations of what a god might be.

I am not arguing that there are no gods. I am arguing that your "evidence" for there being one are lacking. I am not in the business to, nor do I believe is it possible to disprove the existence of anybody's deity.

My biggest argument is that there is no true evidence to the existence of any god let alone your god over any other.

cobrakiller Yes, they are lacking to people who do not understand, or try to follow, or flat out reject the lessons laid out in scripture. These include being humble, righteous, seeking God's will sincerely, seeking, not being haughty, mocking, or dishonorable to God.

You see, people who want to reject the lessons on how to find God are highly likely to not find God, or not recognize His hand in their life. But billions who have followed God have found Him, and seen His hand, done His work, and toiled to ensure people today could have the good things that we have now.

So you see, there is true evidence in the scripture and by the evidence of testimony, and it has let billions to see the empirical evidence of God, which they witnessed, and which has been corroborated over thousands of years, since God first communed with us.

The problem is quite simply your rejection of those lessons that can help you to understand. It is no different if i were to reject studying a biology text book, and then say that it is a stork that brings babies and puts them with a family.

monkwarrior And the testimony for other gods was going on longer then the testimony for your god and only mans mind over the other gods has left your one god. Oh and there are over 300 different gods being worshiped on earth right now. I guess yours is the only true god.

Sheer numbers of believers isn't the deciding factor in something being true or not, it isn't relevant at all most of the time. Consider AGW! Millions think they believe in it, think it is real, but it's still a lie, a huge scam. Has been from the very start.

cobrakiller The problem for you is that you have rejected the evidence of testimony, and are now making fallacious claims based on your cherry picking fallacy, which biased you, and grew a rejection of a sound teaching that provides billions with the wisdom of God that you have yet to experience.

monkwarrior you are the one with the fallacies. Your world is so closed off that you would believe words on a page written by man, than evidence that is true to life.

Somebody saying something is true does not make it so. I don't care if the people who wrote your book believed them, or if they were using them for nefarious purposes.

If they believed every word they wrote (and then had their words subsequently altered over many different edits throughout history) they were more than likely crazy.

More likely, they were the brightest among their people who used tall tales to teach lessons and get their people to behave in a certain way by scaring them to do so.

That last one is an assumption. However, having a pretty good understanding of the human mind, I would say its a pretty good idea that is unable to be tested.

Throughout our history, people have used misinformation to rule over the unintelligent. Would you argue that your book in no way bares the possibility of being a tool for control?

Whether a thousand people, a million people, or a billion people believe something it means nothing unless it is testable and provable. So your testimony argument (whether you speak of the words of your book or the words of the people who claim miracles in the modern era) is and has never been a valid one.

And when you say that I am closed minded for not believing in your false gods or prophets, it is really your own ignorance you share with the world.

cobrakiller my world is not closed off at all. For example, i can see how yours is, as you mock words on a page written by man, when most of what we know was put there. Also if you are assuming the evolution of whales, presented in this video, is evidence that is 'true to life' understand you are simply calling an assumption is true, when the reality is no human today witnessed their transition.

Again, because you chose to reject a valid tool, you shoot yourself in the foot with emotional stances and claims, all to justify rejecting that valid tool.

Thank you for sharing your prideful ignorance with the world here today.

daegog I think it is interesting as well. I've trolled the comments in this thread a bit, just to stir the pot, but haven't yet commented much on the video itself. There are interesting points to consider. I am not yet inclined to come to the same conclusions as the author of the video, as I do see many assumptions being made, but there are things worth considering in it.

Gerry1of1 Well, that's his job. You're the one who recognized the video as being worthy of our attention. So a furry high-paw to you. :)

I had read about Pakicetus (the wolf-like ancestor of whales that lived on riverbanks in the area of modern-day Pakistan) in a science book not too long ago and I was delighted to see it in this video.

"The evolution of the eye is anyone guess because likely no one of us today was there to see it ever occur. So claiming it as fact without having a time machine to observe it factually, to test the theory to call it a fact, is simply just being taken on faith, we have no way to test it, so it is simply asserted, like fire, water, earth and air were once too." - monkwarrior

"If you weren't there to witness it , it didn't happen." sums it up pretty accurately. But please, go ahead and argue how it misrepresents your words...

monkwarrior No worries, I forgive your mistake. You wrongfully assumed that I was referring to "MonkWarrior challenges [DNA]." I didn't. The quote that mentioned evolution was supporting that you believe: "If you weren't there to witness it , it didn't happen."

monkwarrior That wasn't an insult, it was a prediction. It was a prediction that came some what true. But rather than calling BH a troll you called me one. You've also called me pathetic, which I take as a personal insult.

cjeffblanchr I'm not sure, but you may be right. Civility on here seems to wax and wane. Sometimes I honestly find myself wondering if it isn't tied to the phases of the Moon. In early July we had a huge blowup, which was horrid. Lately, as you're observing, things seem a lot more civil. ~knocks wood... hard to do with a furry paw, but...~

monkwarrior I don't completely disagree with this statement of yours. I shouldn't have used the verb proves;demonstrates would have been a better word choice.

Evolution is a scientific theory in the same way that germ theory and cell theory are. This doesn't mean, however, that they are assumptions or guesses. It means they are comprehensive, logical interpretations of a myriad points of data that have withstood scientific scrutiny and help us to understand the world around us.

Let's take cell theory as an example. Cell theory states the following:

All living creatures are composed of one or more cells.

The cell is the basic unit of structure in living organisms (in much the same way that atoms are the basic structure in matter).

All cells are produced by other living cells.

To say that all the evidence of life on Earth proves that cell theory is correct would be inaccurate. Rather, it bolsters the validity of cell theory. Cell theory is now so accepted as a part of science that modern medicine or biology--or more than a dozen other disciplines--could barely function without it.

Is there a remote possibility that scientists will someday discover a life form on Earth that is not comprised of cells? Or whose cells spontaneously generate from thin air? Perhaps. And if they did, cell theory would have to be revised, in accordance with the scientific method.

The theory of evolution is much the same. It explains a myriad curious observations from many different disciplines. As our ability to study life and fossils has grown over the decades, more and more evidence has been emerging that bolsters the theory.

squrlz4ever i know the theory of evolution, i've taken it all through school. Unfortunately the stories that people make up of times when no one was around, and no one can prove, much less find recordings from (or are making guesses supposedly millions of years after the fact), opens up the problem of science getting stuck in the rut that it previously got stuck in. Where science said that the elements were fire, water, earth, and air. We now know that was a waste of time, since we have the periodic table of elements.

Perhaps if/when we can get time travel, or some way to remotely view/observe the past, we will have a better idea, but i for one find assumptions of stories that no one can prove, but just assume, to do discredit to science when it comes to things like this, that no one can today can observe. This is why i can speak out against them, when people try to claim them as fact, because it needs to be known that they are currently assumptions, and while the demonstration in the video is not proof, it's still requiring a stretch of stories to fill the gaps that involve much assumption. It's like hearsay.

monkwarrior I'd disagree with the characterization of scientific observation as hearsay. Scientists, and those who understand the scientific method, would describe the situation not as one of hearsay, but rather as one of a tremendous amount of evidence all pointing in one direction that is best explained by a scientific theory.

The chief problem scientists and the scientifically literate have in discussing these topics with many creationists and others who don't understand the scientific method is that so often, the word theory prompts the response, "Oh, so it's all just a guess? Maybe it happened, maybe it didn't?"

Umm, no. It's not a guess. It's a lot more comprehensive than that, but to appreciate that requires one to have a good understanding of the scientific method, which, in turn, probably requires one to read at least a book or two on the subject. It's a complex concept that isn't adequately explained by a page or two of an online blog.

As a way of demonstrating scientific fallibility, you've been referring to the ancient Greek idea that all matter is comprised of earth, air, fire, and water. That isn't really helpful to this discussion because that belief predated the scientific method. As opposed to the theory of evolution, the ancient theory of the four elements truly was a guess: there was no scientific data that supported that belief, no myriad of observations from different fields that supported the idea, no testing of any hypotheses or revisions to theories.

The scientific method was a complete break with the world that gave us the ancient concept of the four elements. It was an absolute rejection of prior attempts to explain the world through guesses that had more to do with philosophy than science. It has its origins in the Renaissance, brought us out of the Dark Ages, and delivered us the benefits of computers, vaccines, cataract surgery, automobiles, airplanes, and all the other benefits and wonders of modern life.

To cast question today on the theory of evolution by comparing it to the ancient theory of the four elements is to ignore the history of the scientific method.

squrlz4ever Do you agree, in hindsight, that saying "the only elements are fire, water, earth, and air" is hearsay? Based on what we know of the elements today? If it wrong now, it must have been wrong then too, even though many people would have argued until they're red in the face, eg: "They are the only elements, this is the FACT you moron!"

If so, then you MUST be able to see how someone making assumptions about something (like this video did), about something that no one witnessed, can prove, or observed, could possibly be taken as such.

I'm chafing a bit at your use of the word hearsay; it suggests rumor, something that is gossiped about without evidence. If it's okay with you, I'd rather use the term unfounded assumptions. And yes, I would absolutely agree that the ancient concept of the four elements was an unfounded assumption.

Having studied a lot of ancient and medieval texts in grad school, I may be able to shed a little light on the mindset of those who believed in the four elements. They were basing their belief in them on the infallibility of certain ancients, such as Aristotle, who propounded the idea. Aristotle was revered to an almost godlike degree; his ideas were widely considered infallible--so much so that when naturalists reported that spiders had eight legs, not six as Aristotle had claimed, their observations were assumed to be wrong for well over a hundred years.

In ancient Greece or medieval Europe, few people would have disagreed with the concept of the four elements. Those who were educated and could read universally revered Aristotle. Those who could not read were not even a part of the conversation. If anyone were to disagree with the concept of the four elements, he would have been dismissed as unlearned in the mysteries of natural philosophy, the term used for science at the time.

So I hope you're seeing that the theory of the four elements wasn't a product of hearsay or rumor. They were a philosophical interpretation, handed down through treatises, and based on the authority of ancient thinkers who were widely deemed infallible. It was the best attempt at explaining the world available in an era before modern science.

So yes: Were the four elements a product of unfounded assumptions? Absolutely. People who defended the concept were wrong, without question.

Is today's theory of evolution based on unfounded assumptions? Or based on philosophy instead of observations? Or based on the authority of one or two individuals? No, no, and no.

Is it possible that the scientists who are promoting the theory of evolution today are wrong? Yes. But as the decades roll by and more and more observations roll in that bolster the theory of evolution, the possibility that it's wrong grows more and more remote. It's not quite at the point of universal acceptance as, say, cell theory, but it's getting pretty darn close.

squrlz4ever Interesting take on Aristotle, since it's roughly what i considered of him as well.

In fact, what you describe of the later scholars who considered his teachings infallible, is exactly what I have noticed today with the 'preachy' evolutionists who give Darwin the same status today (infallible, even though he admitted his work could be).

Likewise today, there is a growing mentality that you spoke of as well, where there are few who would disagree with evolution simply because that is what is taught today, and if anyone were to disagree they would have been dismissed as unlearned in our society, just as you can see people trying in this very thread.

Unfortunately, as this very video shows assumptions are what hold the theory together today in it's early stages (the stages millions of years before our earliest writings), and the more observations are not rolling in, and in fact some 'transitional' species that evolutionists have in the past sworn were transitional species, turned out to be the fossil of a fish that was still alive and well in the oceans. That assumption was wrong.

Ultimately my point is that big assumptions that can't be observed, and the point you add, thinking someone's scientific work is infallible when there is still might be reason to question, are not good for the advancement of science. It actually can hinder and stunt it.

squrlz4ever Flying Wild Alaska was a wake up moment. Up till then I thought Eskimo women looked like short fat Korean grannies. I googled Ariel and happened across her bikini photos. I would totally fight you to have first try at tapping that.